Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YsChA-0007gw-J0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:06:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.218.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.54; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-oi0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com ([209.85.218.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YsCh8-00020m-RJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:06:12 +0000 Received: by oign205 with SMTP id n205so9768208oig.2 for ; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=K7S40lXH4aT/MM8NHaxzGD2AYFY++5fuH1Ma1jG1/TM=; b=gAwz9MjkqvuW1WDF7gpL/V4LjfKdbxF11Y8lgKmicakm14u4JPeBBG/w+88szwoB3x ahYVImiSPOfHCr5f/SB0Be0I4270f8bLlj+baoe2XbUbNQFV6qYSxZ0o0QwfzIzNMjIl C299Q7lTi+W9o2nzITY+uNPAUdQXnnSR0HlVqOK0eTArKJ+pCxOQHLy3I6qmRUZ78IK6 8IEXFpzCvk7ByQCasz3p9VY8gEgG9QS5SR7uN+asaKDEMlwM3Rf+M+wpr9Nk8XsxoCzg 0ANmPBXMm3U4W7XLi5DYTNwiHSi2PMKkrhAqXG81UIuvxdLOzDDxSqrDeujSuZEWqMk1 docQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9hJDbAH8gINDPK1fJEzxiotigWgGtBJIVdrp2u3nB1GCHa0JgB+UbiDIlRnl5sIQMltqg X-Received: by 10.60.42.161 with SMTP id p1mr12731182oel.7.1431446764941; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:05:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: gabe appleton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c24d80f0897f0515e4ab0c X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YsCh8-00020m-RJ Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed additional options for pruned nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:06:12 -0000 --001a11c24d80f0897f0515e4ab0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 A general assumption is that you will have a few archive nodes with the full blockchain, and a majority of nodes are pruned, able to serve only the tail of the chains. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM, gabe appleton wrote: > Hi, > > There's been a lot of talk in the rest of the community about how the 20MB > step would increase storage needs, and that switching to pruned nodes > (partially) would reduce network security. I think I may have a solution. > > There could be a hybrid option in nodes. Selecting this would do the > following: > Flip the --no-wallet toggle > Select a section of the blockchain to store fully (percentage based, > possibly on hash % sections?) > Begin pruning all sections not included in 2 > The idea is that you can implement it similar to how a Koorde is done, in > that the network will decide which sections it retrieves. So if the user > prompts it to store 50% of the blockchain, it would look at its peers, and > at their peers (if secure), and choose the least-occurring options from > them. > > This would allow them to continue validating all transactions, and still > store a full copy, just distributed among many nodes. It should overall > have little impact on security (unless I'm mistaken), and it would > significantly reduce storage needs on a node. > > It would also allow for a retroactive --max-size flag, where it will prune > until it is at the specified size, and continue to prune over time, while > keeping to the sections defined by the network. > > What sort of side effects or network vulnerabilities would this introduce? > I know some said it wouldn't be Sybil resistant, but how would this be less > so than a fully pruned node? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --001a11c24d80f0897f0515e4ab0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A general assumption is that you will have a few archive n= odes with the full blockchain, and a majority of nodes are pruned, able to = serve only the tail of the chains.


On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM, gabe= appleton <gappleto97@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

There's been a lot of talk in the rest of the community = about how the 20MB step would increase storage needs, and that switching to= pruned nodes (partially) would reduce network security. I think I may have= a solution.

There could be a hybrid option in nodes. Selecting this woul= d do the following:
Flip the --no-wallet toggle
Select a section of the blockchain to store fully (percentage based, possib= ly on hash % sections?)
Begin pruning all sections not included in 2
The idea is that you can implement it similar to how a Koorde is done, in t= hat the network will decide which sections it retrieves. So if the user pro= mpts it to store 50% of the blockchain, it would look at its peers, and at = their peers (if secure), and choose the least-occurring options from them.<= /p>

This would allow them to continue validating all transaction= s, and still store a full copy, just distributed among many nodes. It shoul= d overall have little impact on security (unless I'm mistaken), and it = would significantly reduce storage needs on a node.

It would also allow for a retroactive --max-size flag, where= it will prune until it is at the specified size, and continue to prune ove= r time, while keeping to the sections defined by the network.

What sort of side effects or network vulnerabilities would t= his introduce? I know some said it wouldn't be Sybil resistant, but how= would this be less so than a fully pruned node?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open sourc= e evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/
--001a11c24d80f0897f0515e4ab0c--